DrumBeat: August 22, 2006
Posted by threadbot on August 22, 2006 - 9:10am
CERA's Rosy Oil Forecast – Pabulum to the People
by Randy Udall and Matthew R. Simmons
At a moment when a tank full of gasoline costs $75, the Chinese are eagerly trading bicycles for cars, and Americans are consuming their body weight in petroleum each week, it would be nice to know how much oil will be readily available a decade from now. In a thirsty world, will supply be adequate to satisfy demand?
"The biggest lesson of all from Katrina is the one that nobody's talking about: It's coming, it's coming to all of us," Tidwell told me. "As I argue in the book, what really wiped out New Orleans was a combination of two things: three feet of relative sea-level rise over the last 100 years followed by a massive storm. |
|
Pipeline crisis 'could halve flow of oil'
The price of crude oil could hit $300 (£158) a barrel if BP's pipeline corrosion crisis in Alaska turns out to be an endemic problem for the industry, according to the leading oil industry analyst Matthew Simmons.
BP denies it manipulated Alaska pipeline data
Nuclear energy in U.S. fights for a second act.
Wind power's gusty forecast: The U.S. is seeing a big rise in this cleaner energy.
Turkey: Power Outages to Follow if Drought Continues
Romanian oil rig comes under Iranian fire
BUCHAREST, Romania - A Romanian oil rig off the coast of Iran came under fire Tuesday from an Iranian military warship and was later occupied by Iranian troops, a company spokesman said.
Politics adds to Nigeria’s volatility: Violence centered around oil and who it enriches.
Six militants, one soldier die in Niger Delta gun battle.
Nepal gas dealers begin indefinite strike
Kathmandu - After two days of violent protests over the steep hike in fuel prices, Nepal’s energy crisis took a new turn Tuesday with gas dealers beginning an indefinite strike in retaliation to the government withdrawing the price raise.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Gulf of Mexico over 70% depleted.
Yesterday I was messing around in the US Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service web pages trying to find out how much of the GOM was still offline from Katrina and Rita. I did not find that because they seem to have stopped giving out that information but I did find out a whole lot more.
The MMS as well as the USGS both fall under the Department of Interior while the EIA comes under the Department of Energy. At any rate I it looks like they, the MMS, are look looking at many possible sources of alternative energy including gas hydrates, wind farms and other things:
http://www.mms.gov/2005EnergyPolicyAct.htm#GasHydrates
Also I found some other startling news. The Gulf of Mexico was, three and one half years ago, 70% depleted.
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/offshore/fldresv/MMS%202005-052.pdf
The above points to a rather long PDF file, but on page 7, or page v if you go by the page number of the file itself, you will find the abstract. It says that as of December 31, 2002, the estimated UUR of the Gulf of Mexico was 18.75 billion barrels, of which 13.04 billion barrels had already been produced at that time. Remaining proven reserves were 5.71 billion barrels, unproved reserves were 1.35 billion barrels while not reported reserves, whatever that is, was 2.5 billion barrels.
Note: Before Katrina and Rita, the GOM produced about .55 billion barrels of oil per year or 1.5 million barrels per day. Now it is slightly less than that. But after BPs Thunder Horse comes on line next year then GOM production should jump to a little over .6 billion barrels per year. They expect Thunder Horse, after it gets fully ramped up, to be producing about 300,000 barrels per day. Of course by that time, late next year, the rest of the GOM will be depleted a bit more and producing a little less than it is today.
A further note: I assume this article refers to the area of the GOM that is open to drilling. That is the area off the Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas Coast. It probably does not include the area off the Florida coast. But since the oil starts to peter out as the field approaches the Alabama coast, I have serious doubts as to how much can be found off the Gulf Coast of Florida.
I think that SAT's prediction of oil below $60 this fall reflects the conventional wisdom.
I see Westtexas, you got a shout-out on Kunstler's Daily Grunt. I'm jealous.
I guess that Jim and I are both now persona non grata in certain circles.
In regard to the conventional wisdom stuff about oil prices, I keep having this vision of the various members of the "Iron Triangle" linking hands and chanting "We have plenty of oil. .. We have plenty of oil," thinking if they repeat it often enough, it will be true.
Anything your heart desires will come to you
If your heart is in your dreams, no request is too extreme
When you wish upon a star as dreamers do
Like a bolt out of the blue, fate steps in and sees you thru
When you wish upon a star, your dreams come true"
-Jiminy Cricket
That is the way Simmons & Udall end their EB piece.
Our society is deeply infected with fairy tales. It starts at childhood and goes on and on: Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast, Jack and the Oil Beanstalk ...
Our beanstalk. Our Golden Goose: Oil gushing up from the ground, forever and happily ever after.
Reminds me of a joke:
Two old friends bump into each other as they walk their dogs in a downtown area. "Hey, let's do drinks at that bar across the street," says one. "Can't, we got these dogs" the other explains. "No problem" says the first, "Still got your sunglasses? OK, then do as I do."
The second guy watches with amazement as his friend puts on a pair of sunglasses and approaches the bouncer. "No dogs allowed." "Oh, I'm sorry. I'm blind. This is my seeing eye dog." Oh sorry man, that's different, go on in.
Second guy tries the same thing. The bouncer says, No way dude, I've never seen a Chiwawa as a seeing eye dog.
What! They gave me a Chee wah wah?
Sur it's the same or better in LA San Fran NYC
*better protect your rights to name. I've got a screen play almost finished and a comic-book in the works. I'm gonna be snapping up the copyright soon. Last chance.
I don't have the transcript yet, but you can now buy the CD (details follow). Matt and Jim had never met until that night, and I don't think that they had even talked to each other. Jim was in the studio with Glenn Mitchell at KERA (the local PBS station) and Matt was calling in on a phone line, after giving a speech at the Petroleum Club. (The previous day, I had driven Jim and John Galvin, a reporter, all over the suburban wasteland that is the DFW Metroplex, in search of little pockets of New Urbanism--a memorable experience, I can assure you.)
In any case, Matt and Jim, coming from vastly different backgrounds, were basically finishing each other's sentences. I highly recommend this CD. It's about 50 minutes long, and it is a great way to introduce people to Peak Oil. They can listen to the CD in their cars going to and from work (a little ironic don't you think?).
From KERA 90.1:
KERA 90.1 can provide additional CDs for $10 each. Interested parties should send a check or money order along with details about the program (date, etc.) to:
Talk Show CD Request
KERA 90.1
3000 Harry Hines Blvd.
Dallas, TX 75201
Congratulations.
About a decade ago a man named Alan Sokal became 'persona non grata' in postmodernist circles. In both cases these circles consisted of people believing themself morally superiour to the rest of us.
And in both cases these people are really nothing more than filth.
Compared to all pre-car transportation methods for personal use, it's tantamount to all of us being given pilots licenses and jets by comparison. Could someone with a 50 mile commute do it on a mere bicycle? No. The sheer speed created the sprawl we face today. For those who grew up in the suburbs, 10 miles is close while someone like me who grew up in a city with a carless family would call it appropriately far. But take away the car, and suburbanites are in for a shock! By public transit, a visit to my dad (after a divorce) took all day, but a car trip was like an hour to a town 70 miles away.
An interesting thing about my mindset comes up. As a kid, separated from my dad by the great distance, I developed an interest in aviation due to a wish to reconnect with him. I daydreamed of a car-sized jet plane to drive to that town!
The "arterials" made a huge difference. Two one-way, three-lane roads running through the city. Many of the residents still harbor great resentment over those arterials. They cut through many fine old neighborhoods, doing very bad things to property values and quality of life. And of course, traffic has increased so much that it takes just about as long as before the arterials were built.
You never know who reads this stuff. I just got an e-mail from a researcher at Sandia Labs. They are deeply concerned about the energy situation. From his e-mail: 'We are all researchers with strong interests in helping our nation with whatever challenges confront it. Right now, we believe that is energy."
Anyhow, ask him what he can do about people who drive 20 miles to work every day, drive their kids to school and to soccer practice, drive to the movies, drive to visit their friends, drive to get groceries, and have 3000+ sq ft homes. How about moving all that stuff close enough together so that they can walk? Can Sandia figure out a way to do that ? Then we can get them started on how to grow food locally.
"...The idea that hedge funds can hold up oil for two years now to me seems just plain stupid. I think we should recognize that someone, some company, some country, would have woken up to the idea that it was hedge funds that are holding it up and flood the world with oil. But no one can. They can't even get the pipelines working to take advantage of it, for heaven's sake..."
At least some people are starting to wake up.
I'm not sure whether the Investor Heads who watch his show understand what that means on a personal level or to our society as a whole. They're probably just trying to rearrange their investment portfolios to make tons of cash from the coming oil collapse. Do as Vinod would do. Buy ethanol. Buy "alternative technologies" --there's the answer. Isn't capitalism cool? :-(
(P.S. I'm waiting for the Cramer show on how make money from the coming extinction level asteroid impact. The $ROI should be, well, "astronomical".)
It's not perfect but beats the crap out of the alternatives.
Isn't that exactly the problem?
The problem is that it hasn't been.
Now it's just a shell being looted by the world's rich ...
Very sad.
First off, don't label me a commie. I know what that system is about & I don't advocate it. (It is the ultimate cronyism system.)
But in so far as "Capitalism" is concerned, George Bush gets it right when he says we are the "ownership society".
Ownership means being able to lock everyone else out from "your property". GM and Ford "own" the means of production for making hybrid plug-in vehicles, not me. I don't have "freedom" to use their facilities as I please --to build PEHV's for example. Quite the opposite. Unless I can raise the Venture Capital funding for capitalizing an enterpise, I do not have any real ability to respond in scale to the Peak Oil problem.
The "freedom" you think we have is an illusion.
But if you must, keep believing.
Maybe you can briefly describe the alternatives, or point to some literature.
I'm also curious to know how you suggest that growth, the sine qua non of capitalism, can be everlastingly fuelled.
Obviously we have more people wanting to get in - and not just the illegals. Last time I looked we are thinking about building a fence to keep people out.
Hmmm... maybe with all our problems this this is a good place to live, and that we have more freedoms compared to other places.
My suggestion - if there is a political system that suites you better find that country and move there. We won't stop you.
Everyone wanted to be on the Titanic once, too.
In news which seems to have gone largely ignored here at TOD, Iraq has gotten their oil production back up to 2.5 million barrels a day:
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?dist=newsfinder&siteid=google&guid=%7B2395C FE1-F843-41E2-8336-6293779F7D63%7D&keyword=
http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?storyid=1093123919
Of course, this may prove temporary, again, but over the past 3 or 4 months, it does seem that the Iraqi government has gotten a better hand on energy security, especially in the north.
The American media, meanwhile, continues to insist on their doom and gloom analysis of Iraq as a whole, failing to take note of the incredible progress this Iraqi government has made in winning over the respect of Iraqis themselves and of Middle Easterners in general.
Remember, this is a government which many originally wrote off as either a U.S. puppet or a weak, place-filler which wouldn't even make it through to the end of its term.
Among the most encouraging recent developments:
- Iraqi government firmly supports Iran with respect to its nuclear ambitions.
- Iraqi government firmly supports Hezbollah and its goals with respect to Israel.
- Iraqi government says that state to maintain, "complete control," over Iraq's oil industry, but notes that Iraq will also be willing to utilize foreign companies and foreign capital, "where necessary."
The bottom line is, this is a fiercly independent government which represents the views of the majority of Iraqis on the full spectrum of issues they find important. At this point, no one can claim that Iraq is governed by a, "puppet regime."Why is this so important? It was only be winning over the respect of the Iraqi people that this government was going to survive and bring long-term stability and prosperity to Iraq. They have done this by doing what any good government should do, listening to the people and respecting their views. It took a lot of balls, but this is exactly what Iraq's leaders have done. This bodes very well for the future of Iraq.
Also, with regards to the 2.5 million barrels per day number mentioned above, note that this has been achieved without a penny of foreign investment. This is a 100% Iraqi owned and operated business, with 100% of the revenue and profits going to the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people. Look for that number to continue to rise, with occassional setbacks, in the years to come.
Personally, I have been very impressed with everything this government has said and done of late. They definitely seem to, "get it," as far as who they need to answer to: Iraqis, not Americans. They have also reached out to their neighbors, Iran, Syria etc. in ways which will be very beneficial to the Iraqi economy in the longterm, although, again, it took a lot of balls to do it in the face of American pressure.
Will Iraq be able to deliver on their production goals of 6-8 million barrels per day within 10 years? Many challenges remain (the insurgency, corruption, etc.), but the way this government has performed recently, I wouldn't put it past them.
Why does the American media insist on painting such a bleak picture with regards to the future of Iraq? After all, if Iraqis could have asked for one thing to emerge in the aftermath of this horrible war, it would have been exactly what they have gotten: a fiercly independent government which reponds to their needs and not to the needs of the occupiers. The heroic actions of both ordinary Iraqis and their leaders have been completly ignored by the American media. Ten years from now, Iraq will be a far more proseperous place than it is today, even pessimists would probably give them 5 million barrels a day of production by that point, and Iraqis will be able to look back with pride and honor at the way they contronted the challenges of the last few years. I, for one, admire the way they have handled it.
...as far as oil prices, we have bounced off the recent low in the high 69's, after the current uptick, look for a new lower-low below 69 within the next couple of weeks.
Playing it safe. Until now anyone painting a positive picture has ended up looking like a fool.
Ten years from now, Iraq will be a far more proseperous place than it is today,
In ten years there won't be an Iraq. Iraq is an artificial state invented by the british that is now falling apart into 3 seperate entities.
As for Iraq not being a country in ten years, I don't see that happening either. There are many countries around (maybe all countries) with disgruntled minorities (think Canada) who toy with the idea of separating. It doen't tend to happen, though, as long as the majority wants the country to remain together. In Iraq, the majority, both Shia and Sunni, want nothing to do with a breakup of Iraq. Sure, there are Kurds who might want their own state, but you could say the same thing about Turkey. And I don't hear anyone talking about Turkey not being a country in ten years.
I guess I just feel like something good is happening in the ME. The way these people handle incredibly complex and difficult situations with ease amazes me. The average American would pee his pants just being within a thousand miles of a place like Iraq, but the average Middle Easterner just goes about his business, as calmly and with as much composure as ever. If you look at history, it's not hard to see that great cultures often emerge out of very difficult situations. In fact, I'm not sure a great culture ever emerged without that sort of, "trial by fire." A great example of this is the Jewish culture which emerged in the early 20th century. They had developed such an incredible culture (a superior culture, in many respects) that the rest of humanity became terrified of them. The people of the Middle East have been suffering the same kind of persecution that the Jews once suffered for many years now. I wouldn't be surprised if the end effect of this persecution doesn't end up being similar too.
I don't think that is true any more. The violence is getting so bad that many people who never considered partition are now seeing it as a possible answer.
The problem is the oil. The Sunni would be left without any, and they're not likely to accept that.
This idea that Iraqis are just cruising through life with smooth equinimity is a bit deluded, I think. In the US the equivalent carnage would claim a new 9/11 every 3 days or so. We still talk about that day like it was a tragedy without parallel in human history (and I was a very short distance away that morning and watched it all happen, so I hardly would minimize its horror.) In Iraq, the entire professional class -- not just the petroleum engineers -- has emigrated en masse. An unfailing indicator of a society that's failing catastrophically. I read recently that as much as 90% of the population of Baghdad now has PTSD or other psychological problems from living in abject terror and watching the slaughter day after day -- yet there is not a single child psychologist left in the entire city, and only a very small number of psychiatrists.
I'm a pretty voracious reader of news and current events and I have not seen much to support the perspective that you speak of. Instead, I see in the New York Times last week that many inside the Bush administration (hardly pessimists when it comes to Iraq!) are beginning to acknowledge that democracy might not work as a political system in Iraq and are considering "alternatives". (The story got a lot of play, and is easy to find if you haven't seen it.)
So, a challenge: I don't buy that nobody is getting the Iraq story right (except you). Can you provide some links or names of journalists who are covering the situation consistently and capturing this burgeoning and robust political culture?
I have trouble believing news outfits like the Economist and the LA Times and the General Electric corp are really sandbagging this coverage. But prove me wrong.
They might be staking out independent positions, but that doesn't mean they're a viable entity. There is certainly some fierce independence in any failed state -- doesn't mean it's not a catastrophic outcome. Read this recently:
"A minimally viable central government is built on at least three foundations: the coercive capacity to maintain order, an administrative apparatus that can deliver government services and directives to society, and the resources to manage these functions. The Iraqi government has none of these attributes -- and no prospect of developing them. It has no coercive capacity. The national army we hear so much about is actually trained and commanded by the Americans, while the police forces are largely controlled by local governments and have few, if any, viable links to the central government in Baghdad. (Only the Special Forces, whose death-squad activities in the capital have lately been in the news, have any formal relationship with the elected government; and they have more enduring ties to the U.S. military that created them and the Shia militias who staffed them.)
Administratively, the Iraqi government has no existence outside Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone -- and little presence within it. Whatever local apparatus exists elsewhere in the country is led by local leaders, usually with little or no loyalty to the central government and not dependent on it for resources it doesn't, in any case, possess. In Baghdad itself, this is clearly illustrated in the vast Shiite slum of Sadr city, controlled by Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and his elaborate network of political clerics. (Even U.S. occupation forces enter that enormous swath of the capital only in large brigades, braced for significant firefights.) In the major city of the Shia south, Basra, local clerics lead a government that alternately ignores and defies the central government on all policy issues from oil to women's rights; in Sunni cities like Tal Afar and Ramadi, where major battles with the Americans alternate with insurgent control, the government simply has no presence whatsoever. In Kurdistan in the north, the Kurdish leadership maintains full control of all local governments.
As for resources, with 85% of the country's revenues deriving from oil, all you really need to know is that oil-rich Iraq is also suffering from an "acute fuel shortage" (including soaring prices, all-night lines at gas stations, and a deal to get help from neighboring Syria which itself has minimal refining capacity). The almost helpless Iraqi government has had little choice but to accept the dictates of American advisors and of the International Monetary Fund about exactly how what energy resources exist will be used. Paying off Saddam-era debt, reparations to Kuwait from the Gulf War of 1990, and the needs of the U.S.-controlled national army have had first claim. With what remains so meager that it cannot sustain a viable administrative apparatus in Baghdad, let alone the rest of the country, there is barely enough to spare for the government leadership to line their own pockets.
Let's just start nasty little colonial wars every place we can think of and watch the world become a better place. If you believe hard enough it will be true.
You should be careful in your Blanket statements that OldHippie or anyone else could only dream of dating a lady like the Oil Fairy of above. I am almost positive they were not wearing wings at the time.
SelfAggravating, one of our greatest beloved bullshitters at TOD.
See the rationale at the Armed Forces Journal.
BTW, based on the 2004 list of top 10 net oil exporters (Iraq was not in the top 10), production by the top 10, relative to December, fell at an annual rate of about 7% through May (EIA). This suggests that their net exports are probably falling at double digit annual rates.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06234/715405-28.stm
Brain drain slows flow of Iraqi oil
Tuesday, August 22, 2006 By Chip Cummins, The Wall Street Journal
Excerpts:
Mr. Jibouri's tumultuous experiences in the Iraqi (oil) industry illustrate why it is struggling.
Mr. Jibouri hails from a prominent Sunni farming family near the city of Mosul in the north. After studying petroleum economics in Scotland, he returned to Iraq in the early 1980s and joined the oil-marketing agency. He was part of a team of 14 who worked two shifts, fielding bids for Iraq's crude oil from Asian, European and American buyers by phone, fax and telex machine.
After Iraq's first free elections last year, politicians sounded out Mr. Jibouri about staying on as trade minister or taking the top job again at Somo. But he says many of the top technicians he had worked with had left, and political appointees bloated the agency.
His other worry was violence. Last year, just before Mr. Jibouri stepped down as trade minister, gunmen killed one of his deputies, riddling the man's car with bullets as he drove to work.
A few months later, Mr. Jibouri packed up and moved his wife and three children to Amman. "I wanted to stay in Baghdad," Mr. Jibouri said on a recent afternoon over grilled fish at a new Amman restaurant serving Iraqi dishes and filled with exiles. "But it was impossible. If you are honest you will be killed."
The Last Sasquatch is a much more credible source of market views.
Paper or plastic?
Iraq obviously has tremendous oil potential, which is the primary reason that we have 135,000 troops there. And Iraq, depending on how long it takes to resolve the civil war, can and will increase oil production. So what? Cherry picking one of the very few regions left in the world that can increase production means nothing.
How about the fact that the top 10 net oil exporters are showing declining oil production--and probably showing a double digit annual decline in net oil exports. Focusing on Iraq is like focusing on the 14% increase in producing wells in Texas, from 1972 to 1982--and ignoring the 30% drop in total oil production.
It is becoming more and more obvious that the SelfAggravatedTrader is yet another subsidized PR Troll who is here to muddy the questions.
On the positive side this means that TOD looks "serious enough" to deserve some counter-measures budget.
Maybe she'll bring some friends along?
We might never see the likes of Katrina again, Then again we might have a Wilma in November and see it take out one of our bigger sea coast cities. Climate change means a lot of Climate Change, Our old rules need not apply!
The season is not over till the season is over and 5 greek letters last year threw a lot of people's thinking curve way out of whack.
I imagine the effect of reservoirs getting too low is indefinite blackouts, which to some degree makes rolling or peak blackouts from nuclear or gas plants seem like a joke.
It really gets difficult to be optimistic when even the relative stable and clean hydropower could get screwed up by this conjunction of events.
=========It's all about population!
Source please.
Don't go deep denial on us now. Almost all the glaciers are receding --round the whole world. Try to get your grand kids to Glacier National Park now, before it's gone forever.
Global Warming means never having to say you're chilly in Chile. :-)
Don "Big Prick" Sailorman was unable to find the reference useful. Despite the links to other related material as well as a bibliography that went beyond the usual DS "hey, have you seen my penis?" "It's really big!"
You really should be grabbing his manhood and giving it the big stroke. Or small stroke, as reality always rears its ugly small head.
I didn't know Brokeback Mountain has glaciers ;-)
Small Glaciers Of The Andes May Vanish In 10-15 Years
And here's article describing the water stress that already exists in the area:
On the Roof of Peru, Omens in the Ice
Glaciers are vanishing around the world
The Quechua Indians believe that when the snow disappears from the mountain, the world will end.
You had me worried for a minute, but it seems that the glaciers in Glacier National Park (Montana) and those in Alaska will be around for quite a while;-)
EPA: Global Warming - Impacts: Western Mountains
Glacier National Park Biodiversity Paper #7
Modeled Climate-Induced Glacier Change in Glacier National Park, 1850-2100
There's much more, of course, but I think that's sufficient to get the point across.
Stephen King has nothing on James Lovelock.
Good luck when the Midwest becomes the desert Americans deserve for choosing to accept servitude over freedom. For chhosing to accept ignorance over truth. For choosing to accept the path of least resistance even as it leads to a pool of shit. I hope you like the Italy of 1930's. Because your so far down that road there's no turning back. Hello Mussolini! Ooops, that should be "hello Dubya!"
Nah, it will be worse than Italy, the Italians had style. And real ice cream.
"ignorance over truth"
Dontcha know:
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
As Gore notes, the glaciers on the Himalayas "contain 100 times as much ice as the Alps and provide more than half the drinking water for 40% of the world's population" via seven major Asian rivers, including the Ganges and the Indus. As the glaciers shrink, so will Asia's water supply. As the planet swelters, heat waves of the sort that killed 35,000 people in Europe during the summer of 2003 will become more common.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501336.html
I was sort of stunned. I'd always thought Wisconsin was safe in regards to water availability, but I guess it ain't necessarily so...
A good piece at http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/on_thinning_ice.html
In the case of Glacier Nat'l Park, they expect MORE water, but no ice.
Water falls in late fall and runs downriver, instead of freezing and melting in spring. Enough headwater dams can often adjust that timing if need be.
BTW, one of the weaknesses of hydro is the variablity by year. Wind, on average, has half the annual variability of rain/snow (presentation at Hydro conference in Portland).
My family, Father, Mother, Brother and I lived in a less than 900 SqFt house. My Dad and Mom and I live here now, and though it has been packed to the ceilings with a lot of junk, most of it is not mine so I can't get rid of it. I thinned my own junk down to half of a 10 by 12 foot shed.
I have lived on a boat, I have lived out of my car, I have lived in a Tent Camper. My dad and I turned that same tent camper into a hauling trailer just last month. If you build and make use of vertical spaces, have living spaces that are also open to the outdoors, I do not see why you can't live in under 800 square feet for a family of 4.
Look at Japanese Apartments and then say it can't be done.
My dream home was an earth shelter, the one I Designed was not much over 500 Sqft. My latest design is a 2 story 12 by 12 foot home, with porchs and balconies, and that is still under 500 Sqft and would be big enough for me and a future 3rd wife, or Female room mate.
The need to have bigger and bigger homes is what is draining our barrels lower and lower. My dad has all the tools needed to build a house, I can design and he can fill in the blanks. Will I get my dream house? Most likely not, but I am willing to live there if I do.
We talk about powerdown and then we swear up and down that we can't live without 1,000 Sqft or more of living space. I ask you. Are you even willing to powerdown? Are you even willing to see that we could get by on less? I gave away Most of a 3 bedroom house to get the rest, mostly books and stuff I still have to sort into HALF of 10 by 12 Shed.
Inside I have only clothes, one dog and one cat, everything else is out in that shed.
What are you willing to do to change things in the Future?
I really, really do.
I don't need as much room as I have. There are families with kids living in apartments the size of mine (though of course, they all dream of owning their own homes).
However, I do insist on indoor plumbing.
Having a house with a room for each kid and wife and yourself, and a yard big enough to grow stuff, takes some real wealth, wealth almost all real-life Americans, don't have.
You know, it's a good thing Americans are taught that the world outside our borders is awful and scary, and most of us can't afford to leave anyway, or a lot of us would leave like the rats off of a sinking ship.
Really normal family house here in Holland.
I think because we have ancient and small cities and towns, so
the space is not so much.
Thinking: what about the psychological effects of people forced to live in narrow space, but not used to? Before to sell tiny houses better forbid to own guns...or follow courses for submarines :-)
What's an 'mq'? Square metre? In which case 60 mq = approx 600 square feet, not 200. My one bedroomed apartment is 400 square feet (and cramped by UK standards). I covet 50 square metres :)
1m = 3.28 ft
1 m2 = 10.76 ft2
65 m2 = 700 ft2
You'll notice the poster's original computation probably went something a bit like this:
(65m^2 * 3 ft) = 195 "ft^2" which is erroneous because the conversion factor of "3ft" is linear feet. So in order to compare apples to apples, the unit of conversion has to be squared.
(65 m^2) * ((3.28^2)(1m^2)) = 700/
Amazingly, using the correct conversion units will yeild the correct answer ;)
Contrary to popular stereotypes, lots of nice people live in trailer parks.
Mobile home living has much to recommend it, and if heat is a problem you can build a roof with eves for shade over your abode; mobile homes are easy to heat in winter and very low maintenance.
Nowadays the twelve by sixties are all old, but a well-maintained mobile home that was good to start with (e.g. a Marshfield or Rollohome) can last for forty years or more.
http://www.silvercrest.com/backyardhome/SC%20Backyard%20home%20r2.pdf
You're building a house in a climate controlled environment under direct supervision in a factory. We build so many others things this way, why are houses so different? Modular homes designs in my area anyway meets all federal housing codes and in fact are better, especially in the joints.
I find it kinda neat to show up with a bunch of boxes and have a home "built" in a day.
(Famous pop song from the '60s, tate ...)
Favorite entertainment show by far.
I built my house with foot-thick, ground-up polystyrene blocks (recycled) just so I'd never have to live in a "ticky-tack" home.
Weeds is a good show, I like it.
Type "Rastra Block" into google to learn about the blocks.
Great stuff.
http://www.deltechomes.com/
Click on the Deltec Difference link
http://www.resourcesforlife.com/groups/smallhousesociety/
That fact is probably what drives the optimists -- we can gently scale down as energy becomes more expensive.
My wife and I live in a 2500 sq ft house and have 3 cars. It just worked out that way; we don't use it all or heat it all -- and we try to lend out the cars and take in people for the extra room. But things aren't dire enough yet for ordinary people to have to share abundance -- let alone feel privation.
Of course, predicting the course of the "powerdown" is the fun of this site -- it's like great science fiction. The science is solid, the fiction part of it is sometimes really good, but always interesting
My Fiction is set in a present about yesterday going to a bit over the hill toward the future. Though in some of it you can look back at the past from a Future up to 100 years from now.
I am suprised that we have so much fiction in the predictions of a wonderfully rich energy world up to 2020 ot 2035 or 2056 when suddenly all Hell breaks loose and we go crying to bed and want our mommies. They predict that nothing bad will happen if all things work out. Nothing in the world stays the same. Most of us are growing older and finding health problems we never thought of as kids.
I'll have to put a ramp inside my design, so my aches and pains don't have to climb the ladder up to bed.
I am the first to argue the US lifestyle is incredibly wasteful, but I am primarily encouraging voluntary downsizing now because of my belief that it won't be voluntary in the future. You might as well get ahead of the avalanche of home sales (many via foreclosure proceedings).
One little irony of encouraging the Peak Oil aware to unload their suburban McMansions is that someone else just gets stuck with them, in a game of Musical McMansions. Ultimately, we will all pay the price, probably when Fannie Mae implodes (BTW, I don't think that they have sumbitted audited financial statements for quite a while). In any case, this just brings us back to where we started--It's a good idea to downsize now.
There is one little caveat here. If you have several kids, starting, in, or out of college, you might want to consider the possibilty/probability that they may be coming back home--permanently. This is another reason that I keep suggesting buying small organic farms--it gives your unemployed college graduates something constructive to do, and it may provide you with a food supply in the years ahead. This (the possibility of boomerang kids--you throw them out and they come right back) is another reason I am not absolutely insisting that my wife and I rent something small in a Kunstler Kommune (New Urbanism) area.
I love informing people the very same thing you posted here. If we don't do it now, we will have to do in the future. There is no way around it..
But not only are we a wasteful society, we are one that is in deep denial about our own future. We grew up in the ME FIRST generation and could care less about future generations. When I speak to people about peak oil I ask them to think about their children and how much of a difference living with less oil will have on their livelyhoods. I get the most intense stares.. I love it!
That crazy moving guy must be inhaling too many of his own diesel fumes. :-)
This leads to the reality that most people won't have the correct tools either.
Second, things take longer than immaginable. Nothing goes quickly. If someone is serious about moving to a farm, they need to do it now.
My suggestion is to find a mentor who is doing it. It will save a lot of grief.
I've thought about the tools aspect, also. I think that investing in gardening and hand building tools will pay off better than even gold, when TSHTF.
Imaging the following conversation in about 10 years:
"I hear you have some tools for sale. How much for a hammer and hoe?"
"What you got to trade"
"I have 10 ounces of gold, worth $10,000,000"
"Nah, too heavy. If you don't have anything valuable, get out"
"I have bullets, 38 calibur"
"Now were talking. It's 10 boxes for each tool"
"No, I mean in this here gun"
"Hey, Ralph, confiscate this guys gun, and escort him out"
No one else is interested in them, because they're old, ugly (many with handmade handles), and strictly manual. He used to let me play with them when I was a kid, though, and I loved it.
I have also been putting together Pedal-tools, using old "Treadle" Style sewing-machine tables, exercise bikes (which get thrown out on a very steady basis, certainly under-used). I think we can take advantage of a lot of improvements in materials, bearings, etc, to make even better 'peoplepowered' tools.
http://www.gransfors.com/
I have a Gransfors felling axe and a carving axe. The downside is they are so expensive I can't bring myself to use them. My Gransfors hang on the wall while I get cheap axes from Home Depot to use.
Heirlooms for my kids I guess.
Regards
I live in Paul Bunyan country, and we take our axes seriously. Quality hardware stores have good axes, though for the best quality you probably will have to go online.
A double-bladed axe of highest quality will last an expert logger for about half a year of full-time work before it has been sharpened so many times that it becomes too small and too light. A cheap axe can break at any time and cause serious injury--bad choice.
BTW, get an old logger to show you a few tricks for safe and effective axe use; few who work outside the woods truly understand axe work.
This is the one I prefer and it defies logic as this smallish head is designed in such a way to act as a maul axe. 4.5 pounds but it works as well as a 10 lb head.
http://www.fiskars.com/US/Garden/Product+Detail?contentId=85480
Driving back from the Auto-shop, I saw plenty of older homes that all fit in the family of 4 size range and all of them could have been paid for by the original owners, before of course they sold them. I just do not see the House farms that are springing up in the "Sticks" lasting that long. Anyone that has lived in a house more than 20 years old sees the home repairs in the future. My dad can fix anything in this house that breaks. I was here when he gutted the bathroom to the dirt under the house, I helped him put things back together, to put jacks under the joists and relevel the house. When the McMansions start failing, hopefully someone will still be living in them, be it one family of 4 or 20, or 4 families of 4.
How many of them can be filled if the mortgage company has foreclosed on them and they sit idle? When do the guys move back in when the prices to get there are more than what they make at the job? Sure some of them are built on former farm land, but a lot of them are built where nothing much but scrub oak and pine grows and making a living off your land is not an easy thing in poor soils.
I am just trying to be realistic in how I think about the future. After all I do sometimes have to think of living in it someday.
Don't mean to beat a dead horse, but that sentence is significant. If you actually stop and comprehend the seriousness of fannie mae failing, which I think it will it's just timing, the US can do little but print money to give to them or declare them bankrupt and in effect, the US since this is the greatest source of assets in the country. They've got nearly a Trillion in bonds as we speak and when the people can't pay Fannie Mae and Fannie Mae can't pay their bond obligations (which has never happened to the tune of 700 Billion) then we're beyond screwed.
On a radio talk show a few months ago, a landlord called in and said that he had turned down a couple as prospective tenants--who ended qualifying to buy a comparable house outright.
Recessions--like low tides--show what had previously been hidden.
When it was released, Jerry Knight a columnist with the Post wrote:
So goes the best government money can buy and why it would seem long before we run out of oil, we're going to have a significant global finanical shakeout, that will, as they say, create quite the "demand destruction."
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa528.pdf#search=%22fannie%20mae%20freddie%20mac%22
PDF WARNING! 24 pages.
I'm trying to find the article I read about Fannie Mae and the totality of their obligations. It was a serious read that scared the crap out of me. Google ain't helpin either.
Lastly you propose a good point about trying to chase inflation by loading up on debt now b/c it will be so small in short time. However the structural changes to our economy that scarce oil occupies, as the mainstay of our portable energy, will be so disruptive that I can't see a bubble cycle following acknowledgement of peak oil. The cash will go into infrastructure creation. The country will struggle to redefine transportation into the Euro model and inadequete funding isn't going to make a dent. Any thoughts?
But before you think China will automatically dump dollars, look at it from China's perspective too - buy US properties using existing paper, let the inflation kill part of the debt, and let someone else soak up the dollars along the way. So I guess if we could find any serious signals that China was on a mad buying spree using dollars then we might conclude that they think the "Ka-Poom" theory has merit too. And if not, then maybe they'll cut and run from the dollar, though that would seem to be a desperation move saved for when they believe everything was going to collapse anyway. Remember that China is tremendously lifting itself with dollars we paid it. Cutting those off is a two edged sword, one that I suspect will inevitably be used but not til China feels they must or that they have some great tactical gain to acquire from doing so.
Lifting takes heat and while paper can be useful starting a fire, it quickly flames out.
Parking garages might become good homeless shelters...
As soon as I figure out a timeline for all this to go down, and exactly where these preferable housing sites are, I'll let you all know. ;)
From memory 1 tatiami = 16.5 sq ft (some regional differences in size).
OTOH, FEMA found that the trailers used in Florida were "too comfortable" and it was difficult yo get people out of them after 18 months. So, in order to make life easier on FEMA bureaucrats (our nation's highest priority), they commissioned a multi-million dollar study on what was the smallest and most uncomfortable minimum space that they could supply.
New Orleans did not get any "used" Florida trailers (which might be TOO comfortable; but only the new minimum sized "easy to repossess" trailers. Impossible to put, say, a family of four into (several thousands of those larger trailers are parked on an old airstrip in Hope, AR but can only be installed in Mississippi and NOT New Orleans by bureaucratic rule. Pays to elect Republicans !).
6 or 7 jo makes a standard room size.
It is 2 story, 1135 sq.ft., 3 bedrooms, 2baths. Sits on a 24ft.x 24ft. slab. Tenants love
it; a family of five lives there right now. I superinsulated
it so it has low utility bills as well. State of the art with
coax cable for internet service in all rooms.
When I built it everyone thought I was nuts and
it wouldn't be popular but they were wrong.
Unfortunately, I do not see that is being politically possible. We are locked in an "arms race" of complexity, and there's no way out until we all collapse.
intellectual vision,the spiritual insight,and
even the physical resources we need for carrying
out the transition that is demanded of these
times,transition from the period when humans
were a disruptive force on the planet Earth to
the period when humans become present to the
planet in a manner that is mutually enhancing.
from The Great Work by Thomas Berry
It ain't over 'til its over.
peace
Not true. Some have. Diamond writes about them in Collapse.
However, I don't think it's a coincidence that all the sustainable societies he described were pretty isolated from the rest of the world. They were able to escape the complexity arms race that way.
Without that isolation, the societies that say "we need more" overwhelm the ones that say "we need no more."
I don't know how this worked out. The place seems swamped with complexity, and it's surrounded by the mega-sprawl that is the Front Range of Colorado.
This is what has to be "solved".
How to ENFORCE a "low profile" on potential competitors without entering a power contest.
As I have read in the past Sci-Fi likes to put us traveling the stars and living great lives in the next 1,000 years or so. I love the idea of it, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. I can dream and write my fictional accounts of space travel and new energy devices and such things, but I have to realize that the dreams or a young/old man looking up at the stars at night, are just that Dreams.
Soon the test will be on in full force. Can we powerdown to a long future of simple living on what is left and hang around for 10,000 years, or will we go out with a bang in 100? I don't know the answer. I will though keep my notebook handy, and I will keep dreaming. While of course designing a more simple house design built only with hand powered tools and seeing where I can store all the nails and screws that will become a hot commodity in the years or decades ahead.
There is something DEFINITELY WRONG with that line of thought which shows up EVERYWHERE about"powering down".
You don't really want life to become more awkward and painful by using technologies with very poor efficiency.
What the goal IS really is to prevent the waste and the "sprawl".
Because, even with antiquated means there has been a lot of waste, this is not a matter of technology but a matter of "social values".
What we should be aiming at is efficient technologies AND RESTRAINT in their use.
To put this in an energy perspective and emphasize the point, have gas at 3c a gallon and YET spare it, no SUVs, no suburbia.
Getting back to "hand powered tools" is getting back to primitivism, this DOES NOT SOLVE any problems of growth, population and ressources, on the contrary it make them WORSE for lack of potential in problem solving.
THIS is the way to DOOM and anihilation.
In the energy perspective this amounts to voluntarily choosing low EROEI supplies.
Does that sound ridiculous enough for everybody to understand?
I am concerned about the energy cost of the infrastructure that supports that kind of technology. I am not sure it is sustainable.
Before powerdown was a "trend" or "thing" out there I have practiced the 3 R's, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.
Why doesn't getting back to power tools solve growth?
Look around you right now we are heading for a cliff even if most of the humans in the USA and a few other places do not seem to think so, that does not change the facts. It'll take years to train people how to use there hands again. Look around you I see people using Ipod's, Cell phones, GPS, the internet, and lots of other Technologies that have no clue how they really work of even how to do what they do without the "Power play toys". I have been trained as a Map maker as well, I have been trained to fix Computers, And I grew up when the Internet was Only DoD and College based information exchange system. I know how those things work, I know how my dad's power tools work.
I can not say that for everyone.
In the real scope of my Last statement that you jumped on, I was only talking about me. But I do think that the more people prepare themselves for a less energy dense life, the better off they will be, and maybe the better off we will all be.
"In the energy perspective this amounts to voluntarily choosing low EROEI supplies.
Does that sound ridiculous enough for everybody to understand?"
AND we are being forced to CHOOSE because the system is in the down hill. Better get used to it. At one time in the not to distant past the Sun was our major source of power and we got along okay, we are here to talk about it now aren't we? Keep drinking from the High EROEI barrel as long as you can, just realize it is not as full as it once was.
Should read "Hand, or Human power tools"
The problem with our Adam Smith-driven system is that no one knows how everything works, how it all comes together. You may think you know, but if that is the case, you are fooling yourself.
Sure you may know how to plug a Pentium Chip into its socket on the mother board of your computer, but do you know how to build a plasma etch reactor for patterning the metal interconnect in that chip? How are Black & Decker power tools gonna help you build the computer chip that is needed for "fixing" the computer? There is a certain point where the whole concept of self-reliance falls apart. Does your tool chest include a set scalpels and suture needles for doing your own appendectomy in case you need one? Got a dentist drill for that cavity developing in your upper molar?
Economist Milton Freidman declared that no one person in our Smithian society even knows how to build a pencil --and that's the beauty of the system.
Laugh as you may at that notion. Then tell me which type of graphite you are going to use for the lead in the pencil, which mine are you going to get it from and how are you going to machine the graphite into a thin cylindrical rod? Do you wrap the wood around the lead or push the lead into a hole in the wood of the pencil? Still think we can each be self reliant?
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2006-08-22T003104Z_01_N 21200756_RTRUKOC_0_US-LIFE-USA-BICYCLES.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
Someone's got it right!
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3e3eeab2-3137-11db-b953-0000779e2340.html
Was it crossed IN 2000?
http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/surly-pugsley/index.html
Part 1
Part 2
I think I still prefer nonsense, as in
Thank Godz for Simmons.
This is what stuns me about DannyBoy Yergin - he writes "the Prize" book and gets a booby prize for it but then just completely ignores the most imporant lesson of his own story: Faith in Manz, PoliTICS and Technology is no better than faith in Allah, Jehovah etc...
The DannyBoy Yergins like to think someone has Control. Like the Creationists, they see an end result and in hindsight mistake that result for "intelligent design." But History is more like "bumbling stumbles" than "intelligent design" and only in hindsight does it appear anyone really had much control along the way.
Planz and projections on Drawingz Boards might keep the Fat and Happy Complacent, but when they get cold and hungry ... well maybe let Dannyboy "Jerkin" Yergin consult the History Books for that part.
And this one from last week (I think I picked up here thanks to the wonderful Leanan):
Corroding Sewers, Not Alaskan Oil pipes, Are The Real Danger
By Thomas Rooney | August 15, 2006
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/08/15/corroding_sewers_not_ala skan_oil_pipes_are_the_real_danger/
====As long as oil was cheap, raw materials were also cheap but even now at PEAK Civilization we could just barely keep up with our growth. Now the cities will start to rot - but someday most will become habitable again I bet! (I am always being accused of being an 'Eternal Optimist').. At least that seems to be the way it goes most of these TimezUp... ebb and flow, ebb and flow - HUGE EBB this time (tidal wave-like... fishes floppin' on the beach an' shit...).
I hope Global Warming brings back the Inland Sea to Nort AmeriKa and that Wisconsin, Michigan and Canada invade Iowa so we can have some great Beach Front Property for my grandkids later this century.
"The City Streets are empty now,
The Lights don't shine no more
and so the sun sinks way down low, -Burnin', Burning..."
If D.C. loses AC and A/C due to their local grid failing--Perhaps then they will stop fooling around and actually lead in detritus powerdown and biosolar Powerup. More likely: they will flail about uselessly with stupid programs and lead the masses to Olduvai Gorge.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Allow me to act the male bitch in respect of a few points:
The report might be reassuring if CERA did not have a checkered forecasting record, and if its findings were not hedged six ways to Sunday.
Who among the prophets shall cast the first stone? How `uncheckered' is the forecasting record of the peak oil community? How often has ASPO shifted the peak year? Twice? Thrice? Four times? Remember Odell's joke about our running into oil rather than out of it? To raise the forecasting issue is to provoke the Enemy to reply: the same goes for you.
As to CERA's findings being hedged - well, what shrewd forecaster doesn't throw in a couple of `parameters' and working assumptions so as to leave herself a backdoor to tiptoe out of if the prediction goes awry? For example, Laherrere never fails to mention the possibility of `demand constraint' as a result of economic depression or bird flue or whatever. Skrebowski gives `net' capacity growth figures (`business as usual' scenario) and `net net' capacity growth figures (`unpleasant surprises' scenario) ...
In truth, the energy business is plagued by problems in Nigeria (violent insurgency), Venezuela (Chavez), Alaska (pipeline corrosion), the Gulf of Mexico (hurricane damage), Canada (cost overruns), Iraq (civil war), Sudan (ditto), Mexico (declining production), the North Sea (ditto), and Iran (new project delays, saber rattling).
Apples and oranges: these problems contain a mix of two totally different categories which may have the opposite effect on future extraction capacity.
In Mexico and The North Sea oil extraction efforts are accelerating in order to suck out the last economically recoverable drops. Peak oil year comes closer.
In all the other problem countries oil extraction is decelerating for purely political ot technical reasons or due to force majeure (hurricanes etc.). The oil remains in place and will be available for extraction (hopefully) at some future date. Peak oil year recedes.
More later (if I'm not burnt at the stake in the meantime)...
A brief note while I go gather some kindling.
Deffeyes has never changed his forecast--for a peak between 2004 and 2008, most likely around late 2005. He made an observation in 2003 that he may have been wrong, and that we peaked in 2000, because of the production decline in 2001 and 2002, but he never changed his prediction regarding the 2004 to 2008 time frame for the peak. Some of the Peak Oil debunkers have described Deffeyes' observation as a prediction.
The problem for the Peak Oil debunkers is explaining how we are supposed to have rising oil production when we have credible reports that the four largest oil fields in the world are all declining.
I'm not a peak oil debunker - far from it - but I am agnostic as to the trajectory of the oil production curve over the next five years if only because of the wide range of forecasts within the peak oil community itself.
Let me harp on (4th time in one week) about Skrebowksi's Megaprojects projections as published in Petroleum Review last April (title: "Prices holding steady, despite massive planned capacity additions").
Skrebowski states:
That's gross capacity. Subtract `capacity erosion' for 2005 thru 2010 [1,226 + 1,400 + 1,600 +1,750 +1,800 +1,850 = 9.6mn b/d] and we get 11.7 mn b/d.
Let me spell it out: The latest Megaprojects study forecasts a net capacity increase of 11.7 mn b/d by 2010.
Incidentally, CERA's estimates of potential net capacity growth for the same period 2005 to 2010 are in the region of 16.0 mn b/d [in their latest press report they forecast 13.3 mn b/d for 2006 thru 2010, so I've added 2.7 mn b/d [i.e. 13.3 / 5] to factor in 2005 and make their prediction comparable with Skrebowski's]. There's a big difference but there's hardly a whopping one - both forecasts are pretty `optimistic'.
So who is debunking whom? At any rate I'm awaiting not only a rebuttal of CERA's `rosy oil forecast' but also a rebuttal of the Megaprojects findings.
That's what I would like to know too.
I'm hanging my hat on the Hubbert Lineariztion (HL) method. I would turn the argument around, why don't you try to debunk the HL method?
Repetitive information follows
Following comments based on HL method. Qt = URR.
The Lower 48 peaked at about 50% of Qt in 1970. Using only production data through 1970, actual post-1970 cumulative production through 2004 was 99% of what the HL method predicted it would be.
Russia peaked, in 1984, in a broad plateau centered on 50% of Qt. Using only production data through 1984, actual post-1984 cumulative production through 2004 was 95% of what the HL method predicted it would be.
The North Sea peaked at about 50% of Qt in 1999.
The world, based on Deffeyes work, hit the 50% mark in late 2005, and world crude + condensate production is down 1.3% since December.
Saudi Arabia, in 2005, was at the same point at which Texas started declining. Saudi production is down by as much as 5% to 7% since December.
The top oil exporters, based on Khebab's HL work, are more depleted than the world is overall. In January, based on Khebab's work I predicted an export crisis this year. I estimate that exports from the top 10 net oil exporters are probably now falling at double digit rates.
Will we add new production? Yes--just like the 14% increase in producing wells that Texas put on line between 1972 and 1982, as total production fell by about 30%. Why? The big fields like East Texas started a permanent decline.
Today, it's highly likely that the world's four largest producing fields are all declining. Cantarell is crashing. Ghawar may be crashing too.
The world is declining--just like the Lower 48; Russia and the North Sea.
I've been a Hubbertian since I first encountered his curve in Garrett Hardin's book 'Living within Limits'. I'm not a debunker -- it's just that I think bottom-up approaches can't be ignored or pooh-poohed. Let's follow the data wherever they go -- if they remain on the straight and narrow HL path, that's fine. But if they don't, the path will have to follow them.
So far, Saudi Arabia, the top exporters and the world are following the HL model.
The megaprojects update underestimates depletion in at least one quantifiable way that I wish someone could bring up to Skrebowski so he can either correct the report or say where my premise is wrong.
To get his erosion rate, he took the increase in production from 2004 to 2005 and subtracted the new project numbers for what came on during that time (this was from an energybulletin clarification he published 1-2 mos ago). He took this resulting number as the baseline for worldwide existing field depletion and added a small amount to it annually to get anticipated increasing depletion going forward to 2010. The problem was he neglected the production increase that came from spare capacity during that time, estimated 400,000-500,000 bpd, which masked declines elsewhere. His "capacity erosion" number is therefore underestimated by at least this much in his report.
The other problem is difficult to quantify, but comes from the fact that in that time, major oilfields (Cantarell, ?Ghawar, Burgan, etc) were just entering/approaching a decline phase and wouldn't have shown up in the erosion statistic. However, these appear to be entering an accelerated decline now, and will produce a discontinuity in worldwide production decline rates not included in his linear calculation drawn from the 2004 baseline.
The past few days, there's a ton of stories about the doubts about the link between warming and storms, and about a 100-year long melt of Greenland glaciers (so it's not manmade, is the conclusion). These stories serve one single purpose: doubt. If storms cannot be positively linked to warming, then warming is not so much of a problem.
The same goes for oil depletion. As Jeff very correctly states, the numbers are staggering (double digits, no, it can't be true...). Once more, we are still on this side of caution. But what happens to the climate will happen to oil: accelerating numbers and exponential decline rates.
It's simply how the process works. System dynamics.
But wait, it gets much worse: there is one extra force in the game: once we all realize to what extent Jeff's numbers are true, an enormous amount of the oil that is left will not be available on any market.
50% of oil in the US is consumed by the "corporate/military structure". (The number comes from Derrick Jensen, no use fighting over a few percentage points) This structure will hoard as much oil as it can, and move from 50% on a free market to at least 75% on a depleted market. The US army will make sure, always, that it has at least 10 years of reserves.They are doing it as we speak. (does the army believe in peak oil? they have no choice, they have to err on their side of caution) And corporations will try to do the same. Their very existence in threatened, they have no choice. They have a lot more buying power than you and me, though, rest assured.
That will be one of the main consequences of mass peak oil awakening. The ride will not be smooth, there will be insane prices and insane shortages from one day to the other. Just like the effects of climate change, sudden and violent.
Oh, and the next step of course is governments making sure that essential services have gas. After all that, filling your tank will be a real challenge. How does $50 a gallon sound?
Here you can find a list of UK essential services set in 2000, when French strikers cut down oil supplies to Britain. It's a long list. And remember, you are last in line, after everybody else has been serviced. As in NOT.
Alright, alright, thar she blows: (still a nice article though...go read it.)
NOTE: Prisons and bankers are more important than hospitals and drinking water. Say no more, Guv, say no more...
* Armed forces
* Prison staff
* Coastguards and lifeboat crews
* Fuel and energy suppliers
* Essential financial services staff including those involved in the delivery of cash and cheques
* Essential workers at nuclear sites
* Water, sewerage and drainage
* Central and local government workers
* Refuse collection and industrial waste
* Health and social workers
* Funeral services
* Emergency services
* Food industry
* Public transport
* Licensed taxis
* Airport and airline workers
* Postal, media, telecommunications
* Special schools and colleges for the disabled
* Essential foreign diplomatic workers
* Agriculture, veterinary and animal welfare (10)
Great post. Anyone know how much of the US's 21m bpd of demand goes directly to the military?
I wonder if operations in the Middle East are even included as US demand proper.
I have no reason to believe that US military oil consumption has grown from 1990's 500,000 bpd to 10,000,000 bpd, which you appear to be asserting. Documentation please. You are making an incredible claim, and no, somebody's blog is not evidence.
What you call the "corporate/military structure" is so vague that anyone could make any sort of absurd and useless claim about it. I'll bet that your "source" lumps all energy usage by companies like GM, Boeing, Westinghouse, GE, IBM, and others rather than trying to break out what is military and what is not (probably because these companies don't track energy usage that way). And the excuse for doing this will be more leftist conspiracy or borderline conspiracy.
I'm not buying those conclusions unless you come up with better documentation of what appears to be absurd claims.
However, I see little reason to doubt that military and industry combined make for about half of US oil use. And the trend towards hoarding is the "claim", not any particular percentage.
My point is that a large extra part of the remaining oil will go off the market once the peak is reached. The same can be said on an international level: richer countries will makes less available for poorer ones. Whether that is through physical storage or exclusive contracts or armed protection, is another story.
Do you know if "sanctions" means some kind of naval blockade?
I can't believe the world would remove Iran's oil exports from the market.
In reality, Iran is a largely mis-understood nation, I really do not think the PTB in Iran are truely as nuts as they portray (and yes, they do sound like nuts if you read their news http://www.irna.ir/en/).
Put yourself in their shoes... you have a mainiac running the western world (Mr. Bush) invading as deemed necessary in order to fight "terrorism"; you have been specifically named as a proud member of the axis of evil; you are watching what Israel has done to Lebanon and more specifically what the international community's (lack of) response was.
Additionally you have the capability of pumping 3.5 or 3.8 Mbpd of oil. (is that number correct? I think so) Oil that would be very appealing to a western country full of Hummers and McMansions; along with other western countries trying to figure out how to heat their homes in the next couple years
I can completely understand them desiring, and not giving up the capability to have a future energy source (full cycle nuclear), and honestly though I hate to say it, I completely understand why they would want an atomic bomb.
They are sitting on oil that is desperately needed right now, so they are holding some good cards... What is Bush going to do? Invade them and loose the production? The US is already spread too thin as it is with Iraq.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/15299247.htm
I have not really heard very much about this... but is that because N Korea has nothing we really need?
Of course at that point we will get the obligatory "it's the USA's fault!!" screams from whomever finds it politically expedient.
Gotta laugh reading this article. The U.S. is fully and unequivecolly threatening to "denounce" them if they detonate one.
I wonder if they are brave enough to risk George's denunciation. Sure would take some guts.
I mean , look at them: always invading somewhere or other with their Cataphracti, Parthian horse-archers and Sassanid Persian Armies.
Not like us (or US) of course.
Maybe, just maybe, a nation with a burgeoning youth, a high standard of education and perhaps a reasonable knowledge of Oil depletion, they reckon that nuclear power might just help them keep the lights on two decades hence.
After all, genies trapped in lamps peaked some centuries ago. (Except perhaps in the bedtime stories that Cheney reads to your president at nine every night).
Exxon, Money, and Alternative Energy
Didn't say I think it's the best policy... just a fact of life...
Big Oil and Alternative Energy
Y'know, we peak oilers really shouldn't be surprised...
I, for one, am not in the least bit surprised.
Welcome back to the days of Piracy.
Besides, I kind of like pirates. Especially when they're played by Keira Kneightly. ;-)
Hoist the Jolly Roger and set sail me mateys! We're off to find more rum. We's drank it all on shoreleave. Set course for the nearest rummery!
And, I've also known someone who talked like a pirate, all the time! I'm sure his first words as a child were in pirate lingo, and were gleefully encouraged by his Mum and Dad, in more pirate lingo! Why? Because this is a working-class New Zealander, and speaks the very same English dialect we associate with "pirates". It's a scream, and it doesn't help that the silly guy wears a gold earring in one ear, "because he's been shipwrecked" - he got stranded on a reef once.
Please lighten up.
Maybe Kunstler's right about the pirates...
There are over 200 documented cases of piracy a year.
http://nation.ittefaq.com/artman/publish/article_29461.shtml
Yo ho ho and a barrel of crude!
I find this situation fascinating. Was this equipment in Iranian waters with Iranian Govt. approval originally? Is it a ship-type drilling platform that could move to safety relatively easy? Or is a stationary moored platform that takes a long time to dis-assemble and move with tugboats?
If in Iranian waters, why would the Iranians have to shoot it up, commandeer it, and hold the Romanians as hostages? Wouldn't the Iranians have known this rig was operated at the behest of Halliburton? I admit I am confused--a lot of things are not making sense.
If this rig was actually in neutral waters, or some other country's offshore waters: I would have thought they would have sent a fighter jet and naval gunboat to splash this Iranian helicopter attack and takeover. My guess is the insurance rates for Hormuz VLCC transit and offshore rigs just jumped.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Suspense builds as MSM fails to investigate.
The rig itself I thought was a able to dig deeper than the area it operates in. As to why they took the actions they did...think about this.
We systematically removed Saddam with precision guided missiles. No matter what anyone tells me, we did it for oil. Iran is asserting their rights to use military force(albeit a little lower tech) and make a statement in such a way that we did. I could be off, but it would be a great hindsight kind of moment if things escalate out there.
The rig Orizont has a depth rating of 300ft and we can see from Britanica [page 2] that the Straits are rarely deeper than 300ft...
Would this be an ideal object with which to blockade the Straits of Hormuz without actually laying naval mines. You could load it with explosives and park it in the middle of the channel, possibly with some rocket launchers etc on-board...
<Would this be an ideal object with which to blockade the Straits of Hormuz without actually laying naval mines. You could load it with explosives and park it in the middle of the channel, possibly with some rocket launchers etc on-board...>
It seems like it would be easier to just drop some partially submerged mines off of the back of a high speed patrol boat some night.
Especially if the mines were made in croatia or somewhere. With foreign made mines they would even be able to deny they did it if they wanted to.
I didn't think the Iranians were particularily loking for an easy path here in any case...
As I understand it, while the Strait of Hormuz is roughly 30-some miles wide, there are but two deep navigation channels, one coming and one going, that are each only a little over a mile wide. Due to their very deep draft, super tanker traffic is confined to these channels. While a large oil rig would represent a serious obstruction, it is still not a mile wide, and tankers could sail around it, albeit with some difficulty.
The far greater danger is from a variety of mines, torpedoes, anti-ship missiles, and possibly explosive-packed, low-flying suicide small aircraft.
Even though super tankers are humongous, they are not particularly robustly built, at least not in comparison to naval warships. They are little more than huge floating water (or more accurately, oil) balloons. As such, it would not take all that much to put a super tanker out of action by either damaging its power plant (note: most have but one propeller), rupturing its hull (many are single-hulled), or sinking it completely. A crippled super tanker would be as hard to ignore as a seriously injured elephant.
And hitting a super tanker is like hitting the proverbial broad side of a barn. If the Iranians can't hit a super tanker with at least 'something', then they ought to call it quits and make nice with the US and Israel.
While the Iranians would suffer greatly in a military confrontation with the US, they are still capable of dropping one big turd in the global punch bowl.
It's probably archived somewhere, great stuff!
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-07-15T130158Z_01_ALL546 893_RTRIDST_0_OZATP-MIDEAST-ISRAEL-SHIP-20060715.XML&archived=False
The article says the C802 missile has a range of 60 miles.
Bokken
I coulda pulled that one off in my sleep. I have to wonder what provisions have been made to deal with this type of low tech tactic. anyone know?
My guess is any warship from any country that pulls into a port somewhere [even its homeport] puts buoys out at a safe distance from the ship. These buoys have a message that declares that anything going past these buoys has entered a 'free-fire zone', and warships can carry an incredible array of weapons. You will never again see a boat approach a warship until it has been boarded and thoroughly checked by that warship's MP sailors. If the warship is against a dock--they establish the same kind of perimeter on land and MPs carefully inspect all approaching vehicles and cargo.
Of course, antiship missiles don't have time to heed the warnings.....that is why Thatcher threatened France with annihilation unless they gave her the disabling codes [frequencies?] for the Argentinians' Exocet missiles in the Falklands War.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Among other cruise missiles, Iran has the Sunburn. Good-bye to any boat of any size or armament in the Strait of Hormuz if push comes to shove.
By the way, how exactly was Thatcher planning to blow nuclear armed France to so many parts per trillion?
The US navy has a point defense system that kicks ass
Or gets kicked, this has been discussed several times on TOD :
http://www.theoildrum.com/comments/2006/4/8/213821/5547/31#31
http://www.theoildrum.com/comments/2006/8/6/91051/08126/294#294
Oops--got my recall facts slightly wrong--memory starting to fail. Thatcher told Mitterand she was going to nuke Buenos Aires unless she got the Exocet codes.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Thatcher threatened Mitterand with Buenos Aires annihilation and he folded.
What'll happen is a crater is made underwater, as water is pushed out... but as it fills back in, you get a second, better one! The tsunamis wipe out the oil ports for a long time. With a nuke, Iran can weaponise tsunamis! I dreamed up this exact scenario after that Y2K4 "Boxing Day" tsunami.
The 2004 tsunami originated from a quake that involved 0.25 gigatons of TNT energy equivalent (or about 250 megatons). The average nuclear weapon today in the US and Russian arsenals is in the low to medium hundreds of thousands of kilotons (KT) range. An Iranian nuke would likely be between 10KT and 100KT. Further, an Iranian nuke is likely to be a fission device which has some practical upper limits on size due to engineering, delivery mechanism, etc.
While you may fantasize about nuke generated tsunamis, they aren't going to happen anytime soon.
''Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suspended Oriental Oil's activities in 2005 on alleged corruption activity and ties to Halliburton Co. of the U.S. The U.A.E.-registered drilling company had signed a preliminary contract with Halliburton after winning an estimated $310 million contract to develop phases 9 and 10 of Iran's offshore South Pars gas reservoir''.
Wot? (allegedly) Halliburton doing business (allegedly) in Iran? (allegedly)via intermediaries (allegedly)
Shurly Shome Mishtake.... Is it not part of the axis of evil? (Iran that is, not (allegedly) Halliburton...)
That'll be (allegedly) Halliburton, I whimsy, just as (allegedly)it was throughout all the years of the Libyan embargo.(allegedly).
plus ca change (allegedly)
Electricity is also a problem:
dorme bien
They needed more NET export...and they can engineer that.
***ok ok...but its a theory.
========It's all about population!
Gee...food is more expensive in Iraq too. Oh and 4 hrs of electricity? Here in STL when our power was out for a week (I wasn't affected luckily) there were police being called to keep angry people from the repair crews. Sad, but people are ignorant at best.
Not saying buses won't see a lot more ridership, they can be a lot more comfortable than a bike, dryer in the rain, etc.
--------
Ugh - news bulletin - dead person on the BART tracks, they're turning all the trains around ......
Sure, I could have used a bicycle, but that'll cost something and be riskier, having to ride in the street. And a car was out of the question no matter the distance.
This short distance made walking the best possible choice due to my walking speed cutting the time. Fast walking creates the same benefit to a pedestrian that running speed gives to Kenyan schoolkids who commute by running. (HINT: That helps explain why Marathon winners are often from Kenya.) While American cities are not "New Urbanist" except some neighbourhoods, they are vastly better on foot than suburbs. To compensate for not being like European cities, you pick up the speed.
"Some fear that after decades of pumping, mankind has finally begun exhausting the earth's reserves of crude oil."
Arizona has been trying to build a refinery for years so that we are not so entirely dependent upon two corroding importing finished petrol product pipelines [one from CA 60%, the other from Tx 40%]. AZ only extracts 142 barrels/day total from 18 stripper wells-- in short, our vehicles probably drip more oil than we mine.
The proposed refinery for Yuma,Az area has numerous big problems that need to be solved, and my guess is that Peakoil will prevent this refinery from ever being built:
1. The oil majors are against a new refinery being built:
---------------
He has talked with "majors" in the oil industry enough to know they don't believe there's a "significant economic driving force" for a new refinery in this country. Their approach is to expand capacity at existing refineries, which have dwindled from 324 operable refineries in 1981 to 148 today.
But that approach hasn't kept pace with demand and won't in the future, McGinnis said.
"We're not saying we're going to solve the problems in the world here with one oil refinery," he said. "But we believe -- and think the economics will show -- that there is a need for not only expansions in existing facilities, but there is a need for a new refinery."
-----------------------------------------
So the IOCs are telling him we are going postPeak soon, and AZ, along with much of the US Southwest can expect to be economically hammered very hard. Why build a refinery if they cannot even get sufficient crude for an already existing TX refinery?
Foundation concepts of predictive collapse and directed decline from extensive supercomputer simulation would probably indicate much the same outcome--Cascadia, are you ready for the multi-million people migration influx? With open arms, or arms-length by Earthmarines?
Sounds to me like McGinnis needs to be informed on Peakoil, but it is hard to disagree with his desire to make AZ safer by having its own refinery. AZ could than export finished products to Las Vegas, making them safer too. Recall my recent posting on how Vegas will be shortly maxed on pipeline shipping capacity. Or Maybe-- McGinnis is Peakoil aware, but is trying to max his personal fortune first by prodding us ever forward along the infinite growth path to our doom.
- Peakoil and politics is making it impossible for this refinery to secure sufficient initial, guaranteed crude contracts to ever be built. The idea is to build a Pacific seaport off the Baja coast and offload Canadian oilsands crude, then pipe it the 250 miles inland across Mexican land to the refinery. It could also offload other crudes from VLCCs relieving the growing congestion at the CA oilports.
- Another big problem is getting a guaranteed Mexican crude supply to this refinery, either by VLCCs or a pipeline from the Mexican oilfields. Us TODers are quite aware of PEMEX's financial problems and Cantarell's output crashing.
That is why I think the Mexican election standoff is crucial to the US's and AZ's future. Hopefully, there was no covert US influence in their election process. If the Mexican populace wants to prepare early for the eventual division into mostly discrete biosolar and detritus lifestyles--that is their right. The Zapatistas appear to be an early vanguard in this biosolar movement by their refusal to participate in detritovore politics. Are the survivalists on this forum the future American vanguard equivalent of the Zapatistas?AMLO would probably gradually shutoff the nearly 2 mmbl/day exports to the US as Cantarell declines to be used internally for the Mexican poor. Calderon, if he wins, will probably invite SUPERNAFTA and having the IOCs come in with their big bucks finances to develop the remaining oil resources, but keep the exports going to the US at the expense of the poor Mexicans. Mexico is oil-rich [and depleting], but refinery poor -- they import alot of gasoline. AMLO would rather build Mexican refineries [possibly financed by Chavez from Venezuela?], Calderon may be induced by economic hitmen to provide crude to the proposed AZ refinery. I really have no idea what is the best answer here from a Foundation viewpoint.
Here in the Asphalt Wonderland-- nearly all Arizonans that are Peakoil-unaware, are in favor of this refinery. This Narcosphere article provides an interesting alternative viewpoint as it encourages Mexico to do all it can to not support the AZ refinery:
Selected excerpts [but I recommend reading the article]
---------------------
Catching a Sneaky Fox in A Pipeline Scandal: Oil and the Power of Arizona Big Shots
By Marcel Miranda,
Posted on Tue Mar 29th, 2005 at 01:17:56 AM EST
Arizona has approved the construction of an oil refinery based on Mexican oil and a pipeline from Guaymas. The 3 to 4 billion dollar project is bad for Mexico. Jobs and income will be lost and a dangerous dependency on the US will increase.
Exporting more oil to the US is a great mistake economically speaking. There is plenty of demand worldwide and no shortage of willing long-tern contract buyers. The US has a problem (well more than one) with oil refining - it has not built a new refinery in 30 years, many small ones have closed and some of the newest ones seem to be blowing up.
Enigmas abound in this deal. Why build a refinery far from oil? And why would Mexico send cheap oil just across its border to be refined into gasoline when Mexico imports almost a quarter of its gasoline costing the country more than one billion dollars a year. (3) Mexico could build a refinery in Hermosillo or Guaymas and sell gasoline to the US at a high profit. This would create many jobs and save Mexico precious foreign currency reserves (dollars). And a new Mexican refinery could supply petrochemicals that the country must also import (4).
Oh, I forgot the oil pipeline may be built or owned by the Carlyle Group (Bush-Cheney-Powell) (2)
The Arizona oil pipeline is a threat to Mexico's national security - it's a one-way deal that will be enforced forever. Right now Mexico is dependent on the US for a significant amount of its gasoline imports. The new pipeline will increase this dependence. Worse yet, once it is built the Mexican government could never dare stop sending oil north as this would shut down the refinery and cause severe problems for the US. Well actually it would cause severe problems for Mexico as the US would never tolerate a disruption in supplies to its new refinery.
-----------------------
Gringos joke that pelicans are the Mexican Air Force, while AZ's Luke Air Force Base is a top jetfighter training base.
A worldwide Foundation would determine using ASPO's Depletion Protocols what would be the best course of action.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Anything like that in the AZ newspapers?
Thxs for responding. Unfortunately--Nothing in my local MSM. Consider the 'Fifteen Favored States' in the latest Hirsch Report Update and see how much of it dovetails with this 'official' Supernafta website.
If one considers the remaining US FF detritus to be developed, and how much our detritus infrastructure spiderweb will ultimately shrink to a sustainable minimum, a lot of this thinking makes commonsense. I believe this will be a primary postPeak 'seasonal' population migration route along with being a year-round supply route. Of course, this implies that much of the rest of North America will become largely biosolar with somewhat discrete detritovore outposts. My speculation of course,FWIW.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_4114.shtml
so the oil fairies come out of the ground and fly to Vegas to seek employment?
This is (IMHO) more polemic and less persuasive. Comments appreciated.
======The recent Peak Oil paper [insert title] prepared by Hirsch, Bezdek and Wendling overlooked the "best" solution. This overlooked approach can have a quicker and larger impact than any one of your proposed mitigations; and quite possibly more than all four together. In extremis, it is technically and socially possible (see historical precedents below) for this one solution plus declining US domestic production to provide all of our transportation needs without resorting to coal-to-liquids, oil shale, heavy oil or enhanced oil recovery. And do so in an environmentally positive way.
The first of the two linked, and overlooked, approaches is to electrify our inter-city freight railroads (with some enhancements) and promote inter-modal transfers with free market and other incentives (such as Interstate Highway tolls). The other is to build Urban Rail on a scale comparable (or better than) the Interstate Highway system.
A conservative estimate, based on a major but not a crash effort, is that these two approaches can save 10% of US Oil use in ten to twelve years. A crash effort could do more than the "Peak Streetcar" building era from 1897 to 1916. A nation of less than 100 million people, a majority still rural, with a GNP (inflation adjusted) of just 3% {need real #] of today and primitive technology built 500 streetcar systems. Most towns of 25,000 or larger got electrified transportation. Clearly the United States has the technology and resources to do much more today than a century ago.
The changes in the urban form brought about by an abundance of electrified Urban Rail and a paucity of liquid transportation fuels would be of the magnitude of the changes brought about by deliberate federal policy from 1950 to 1970; when almost all downtown shopping and business districts died, most established neighborhoods declined and suburbia and shopping malls boomed.
We did it once, we can do it again !
Oil, or "Liquid Transportation Fuels" are not required to support an advanced Western industrial society with a vibrant democracy and a decent quality of life. A premier example is Switzerland of WW II. Due to strategic decisions made in the 1920s, and subsequent investments, they were able to function with 1/600th of current US per capita oil use in 1945. Three years later, they were still at 5% of current US oil use, a level that would allow the United States of today to join OPEC.
Tellingly, in 1998 Swiss voters approved a twenty year, 31 billion Swiss franc program to improve their already excellent electric rail system. Adjusted for population and currency, this is equivalent to the United States voting $1 trillion ! The dominant goal, of several goals, is to move all heavy freight by rail and not truck. Semi-high speed passenger service and quieter rail cars are other goals.
The Swiss are not alone in taking strongly pro-active actions to get off oil today. The Thais have budgeted 550 billion baht (~US$14 billion) for mass transit, are building a 95% renewable electricity grid and developing small scale rural biogas. And the French are in the midst of adding one tram line to every city of 150,000 and two tram lines to every city of 250,000 as well as finishing their renowned TGV system.
A prediction that the Iron triangle is going to get hammered on all three sides here rgemonitor
cfm in Gray, ME